2261 réponses à ce sujet

[Taciter]

dreman9999 wrote...
But ME3 =SP>mp. Stating ME3 asa value of SP +mp is a bit of a strech.

If any thing. ME3 SP=THE value of ME1and ME2 sp.
The mp in ME3 is an add on.
Nor was I ever stating Mp should not have AI. But on point. A MP AI would be no different then the sp side mission. In shortyou already have something like that.

It would be ME3 SP=(ME1 sp +ME2 sp)> mp

That's inconsequential, it doesn't matter if:

MP < SP

The important part is that 'MP' HAS a definite value (all be it small). The only way to balance out (SP + MP) which is EXACTLY what 'ME3' is, is to inject a another variable equal to MP that ISN'T MP. Something like:

AI = MP

Of course the MP's an addon hence '+'. and I'm afraid you're wrong thus:

AI = AI Squad members
HS = Human Squad members
SM = Single player side mission
MP = Multiplayer

SM <> MP therefore...

(ME3 = (SP + SM + (MP+HS))) <> (ME3 = (SP + SM))

However..

(ME3 = (SP + SM + (MP+HS))) = (ME3 = (SP + SM + (MP+AI)))

See!!!

p.s. ME3 SP=(ME1 sp +ME2 sp)> mp roughly translated would be:

Single Player ME3 is the same as Sinlgle Player ME1 and ME2 combined which in turn are worse than Multiplayer.

Not sure if that's what you meant to articulate but I'm sure there are many 'solo'ists' here who would take exception.

Modifié par Taciter, 18 octobre 2011 - 06:23 .

[Lumikki]

dreman9999 wrote...

I'm sorry you no considering thatthe sp is an equal value of the sp of ME2 and ME1. The averge cost of agame is $60. Ifwe are getting less in the sp because of this or being charged more for the game because of this, I would understand your point.

You need to learn RL business more. If you gonna sell something at $60, that means amount of sales has to be above production cost. If production cost is about to go too high, they need to cut something off before it goes too high. Meaning cut some other content to make fit something else. Making any content in game cost MONEY and that money has to be get back one way or other.

Cost of product < sales + profit.

Or do you think companies just hope sales to sky high because MP?

Modifié par Lumikki, 18 octobre 2011 - 06:35 .

[Dudeman315]

dreman9999 wrote...

Taciter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
So am I . I'm not understanding you point. You just went into a rant. How can I respond to something that say nothing of value.

No.. a 'rant' is an overzealous verbal expression. The posts to which you were referring contain no such characteristics, they were rational, ullustrative statements. If you don't have the capacity to disseminate the contents then don't blame me and if you don't understand the point, how did you manage to determine that it contained 'nothing of value'?

But okay, I'll have one last go... if you need me to send you a pop up book, I will... but you're responsible for the publisher's fee.

ME1 = Mass EFfect 1
ME2 = Mass Effect 2
ME3 = Mass Effect 3
SP = Single Player
MP = Multiplayer
AI = AI controlled Squad members
$profits1 = Theoretical Profit value 1
$profits2 = Theoretical Profit value 2

Okay, so if:

 'Mass Effect Franchise' = 'ME1' + 'ME2' + 'ME3'

And...

 'ME1' = SP
 'ME2' = SP

What should 'ME3' equal?
Since logic clearly has a sense of humour we'll throw a spanner in the works shall we:

 'ME3' = (SP + MP)

Which means that:

 SP > MP
 (SP + MP) > SP
 SP <> (SP + MP)

So how do we logically balance the question?

 AI = MP
 (SP + AI) = (SP + MP)

So to conclude:

 'ME3' = (SP + MP) = Bad
 'ME3' = (SP + MP + AI) = Good

And...

 Good = $profits1
 Bad = $profits2

 $profits1 > $profits2

But ME3 =SP>mp. Stating ME3 asa value of SP +mp is a bit of a strech.

So 1>.5  and 1 +.5 =/= 1.5 in your world?

If any thing. ME3 SP=THE value of ME1and ME2 sp.

So by your logic:

SP=SP+SP or SP=2SP or 1=2

The mp in ME3 is an add on.
Nor was I ever stating Mp should not have AI. But on point. A MP AI would be no different then the sp side mission. In shortyou already have something like that.

It would be ME3 SP=(ME1 sp +ME2 sp)> mp

How many times did you fail math? His math was soild.

Modifié par Dudeman315, 18 octobre 2011 - 06:32 .

[CptBomBom00]

also it depends on rivalry and time.

[dreman9999]

Taciter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
But ME3 =SP>mp. Stating ME3 asa value of SP +mp is a bit of a strech.

If any thing. ME3 SP=THE value of ME1and ME2 sp.
The mp in ME3 is an add on.
Nor was I ever stating Mp should not have AI. But on point. A MP AI would be no different then the sp side mission. In shortyou already have something like that.

It would be ME3 SP=(ME1 sp +ME2 sp)> mp

That's inconsequential, it doesn't matter if:

MP < SP

The important part is that 'MP' HAS a definite value (all be it small). The only way to balance out (SP + MP) which is EXACTLY what 'ME3' is, is to inject a another variable equal to MP that ISN'T MP. Something like:

AI = MP

Of course the MP's an addon hence '+'. and I'm afraid you're wrong thus:

AI = AI Squad members
HS = Human Squad members
SM = Single player side mission
MP = Multiplayer

SM <> MP therefore...

(ME3 = (SP + SM + (MP+HS))) <> (ME3 = (SP + SM))

However..

(ME3 = (SP + SM + (MP+HS))) = (ME3 = (SP + SM + (MP+AI)))

See!!!

p.s. ME3 SP=(ME1 sp +ME2 sp)> mp roughly translated would be:

Single Player ME3 is the same as Sinlgle Player ME1 and ME2 combined which in turn are worse than Multiplayer.

Not sure if that's what you meant to articulate but I'm sure there are many 'solo'ists' here who would take exception.

But the value of the sp of ME3 is the value of the sp in thelast games. Also,I'm not taking about game styles, I'm talk about the value of the game.
I also don't know why you keep going on about AI in the mp. That's a perferance and a perferance will never make the game better. It justyou whould like to have it. In the end it would be no different then the sp side missions. I'm not saying it should not have it, just that it does not need it.

[Killjoy Cutter]

How would increasing the playability of the MP content, especially going forward into a future time when the MP won't have a lot of people playing it (say, in two years) "not" make the game better?

[dreman9999]

Lumikki wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

I'm sorry you no considering thatthe sp is an equal value of the sp of ME2 and ME1. The averge cost of agame is $60. Ifwe are getting less in the sp because of this or being charged more for the game because of this, I would understand your point.

You need to learn RL business more. If you gonna sell something at $60, that means amount of sales has to be above production cost. If production cost is about to go too high, they need to cut something off before it goes too high. Meaning cut some other content to make fit something else. Making any content in game cost MONEY and that money has to be get back one way or other.

Cost of product < sales + profit.

Or do you think companies just hope sales to sky high because ML?

For one they want to sell the game to more people. Cut the used game sells. Also,your forgeting any finacing from the last game they gain that would be used in the new games perductiond. In Short, they are not cutting anything from the sp. The thing that will get the less careis the mp.

[dreman9999]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

How would increasing the playability of the MP content, especially going forward into a future time when the MP won't have a lot of people playing it (say, in two years) "not" make the game better?

How would adding AI  bots impove mp if you playing by yourself? That's not a mp any more, it a sp game with a short term objective. It would be no different than the sp side mission. If you want that you can just replay the side missions over and over.

[Lumikki]

dreman9999 wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

I'm sorry you no considering thatthe sp is an equal value of the sp of ME2 and ME1. The averge cost of agame is $60. Ifwe are getting less in the sp because of this or being charged more for the game because of this, I would understand your point.

You need to learn RL business more. If you gonna sell something at $60, that means amount of sales has to be above production cost. If production cost is about to go too high, they need to cut something off before it goes too high. Meaning cut some other content to make fit something else. Making any content in game cost MONEY and that money has to be get back one way or other.

Cost of product < sales + profit.

Or do you think companies just hope sales to sky high because MP?

For one they want to sell the game to more people. Cut the used game sells. Also,your forgeting any finacing from the last game they gain that would be used in the new games perductiond. In Short, they are not cutting anything from the sp. The thing that will get the less careis the mp.

It's allways to any product:

Cost of product < sales + profit.

Because it's BAD business to take losses from sales.

You seem to think like game companies makes games for us just for fun of it and not for profit. Companies want us to be happy with they games, but they ALLWAYS also NEED to make profit. Other ways they don't have future in game business.

Modifié par Lumikki, 18 octobre 2011 - 06:48 .

[CptBomBom00]

nuff said.

[Il Divo]

I want to argue more, but there's just... too... much...math.

[dreman9999]

Lumikki wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

I'm sorry you no considering thatthe sp is an equal value of the sp of ME2 and ME1. The averge cost of agame is $60. Ifwe are getting less in the sp because of this or being charged more for the game because of this, I would understand your point.

You need to learn RL business more. If you gonna sell something at $60, that means amount of sales has to be above production cost. If production cost is about to go too high, they need to cut something off before it goes too high. Meaning cut some other content to make fit something else. Making any content in game cost MONEY and that money has to be get back one way or other.

Cost of product < sales + profit.

Or do you think companies just hope sales to sky high because MP?

For one they want to sell the game to more people. Cut the used game sells. Also,your forgeting any finacing from the last game they gain that would be used in the new games perductiond. In Short, they are not cutting anything from the sp. The thing that will get the less careis the mp.

It's allways to any product:

Cost of product < sales + profit.

Because it's BAD business to take losses from sales.

You seem to think like game companies makes games for us just for fun of it and not for profit. Companies want us to be happy with they games, but they ALLWAYS also NEED to make profit. Other ways they don't have future in game business.

That the very thing. You don't know the cost of how much is to make ME3. How will we ever know if the mp only added a little bit to the cost of product and that it did not overlap the estamete of the return they get for the sell of the game.
You don't think EA would not consider something like that when they are making a game.
This is pve co-op. It's not a very advance mp mode to make. It's just like an online co-op campain for a mp games. That's easy to make. Considr that as well.

[dreman9999]

Il Divo wrote...

I want to argue more, but there's just... too... much...math.

Use the kings english then.

[Il Divo]

dreman9999 wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

I want to argue more, but there's just... too... much...math.

Use the kings english then.

I don't think it would work. It would be like speaking Italian when everyone around you is speaking Japanese.

[Lumikki]

dreman9999 wrote...

That the very thing. You don't know the cost of how much is to make ME3. How will we ever know if the mp only added a little bit to the cost of product and that it did not overlap the estamete of the return they get for the sell of the game.
You don't think EA would not consider something like that when they are making a game.
This is pve co-op. It's not a very advance mp mode to make. It's just like an online co-op campain for a mp games. That's easy to make. Considr that as well.

Yeah, I have consider it, but you keep saying MP has "no" affect at all to SP or costs. When everyone here knows MP has affect to the cost and it will have other effects too. That is what we have talked here, consern of MP's affect.

You just keep loving MP so much and keep ignoring that MP could have also negative consequences. You are right I don't know how much the costs are for MP and how big the affect has to SP, but that goes you too. You also don't know it. Why to hell you think we express our consern here?

Modifié par Lumikki, 18 octobre 2011 - 07:04 .

[dreman9999]

Lumikki wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

That the very thing. You don't know the cost of how much is to make ME3. How will we ever know if the mp only added a little bit to the cost of product and that it did not overlap the estamete of the return they get for the sell of the game.
You don't think EA would not consider something like that when they are making a game.
This is pve co-op. It's not a very advance mp mode to make. It's just like an online co-op campain for a mp games. That's easy to make. Considr that as well.

Yeah, I have consider it, but you keep saying MP has "no" affect at all to SP or costs. When everyone here knows MP has affect to the cost and it will have other effects too. That is what we have talked here, consern of MP's affect.

You just keep loving MP so much and keep ignoring that MP could have also negative consequences. You are right I don't know how much the costs are for MP and how big the affect has to SP, but that goes you too. You also don't know it. Why to hell you think we express our consern here?

Consider the fact that a horde mode is very cheap to make. You have no real balancing issues work on. You make the environments out of things form the sp. The only time things become expensive with mp is with vs, or long term extended co-op play. That's not the case with the mp in ME3. It's a hordemode, not difficult to make. Low expense.

[CptBomBom00]

HordeMode Yeah lets bust us some husk ass.

[uv23]

I'm sure its been posted but this forum software is pretty horrible for keeping up on topics: can we customize the appearance/name of our multiplayer characters?

[dreman9999]

uv23 wrote...

I'm sure its been posted but this forum software is pretty horrible for keeping up on topics: can we customize the appearance/name of our multiplayer characters?

Yes, but it  had a catch. You have to recuit the race first to do so.

[Lumikki]

dreman9999 wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Yeah, I have consider it, but you keep saying MP has "no" affect at all to SP or costs. When everyone here knows MP has affect to the cost and it will have other effects too. That is what we have talked here, consern of MP's affect.

You just keep loving MP so much and keep ignoring that MP could have also negative consequences. You are right I don't know how much the costs are for MP and how big the affect has to SP, but that goes you too. You also don't know it. Why to hell you think we express our consern here?

Consider the fact that a horde mode is very cheap to make. You have no real balancing issues work on. You make the environments out of things form the sp. The only time things become expensive with mp is with vs, or long term extended co-op play. That's not the case with the mp in ME3. It's a hordemode, not difficult to make. Low expense.

Here you go again saying how cheap and easy for MP content is to make and so on. Are you game developer and know how easy it is or what it cost and what affects it has?

Point been just because you like MP content, doesn't mean you assumptions are right. I'm not saying that you are wrong or right, but problem is you are making just personal assumption without any knowledge of anyting related MP game design development.

Modifié par Lumikki, 18 octobre 2011 - 07:21 .

[CptBomBom00]

So here we go again like running in da circle.

[Taciter]

woops... double-post

Modifié par Taciter, 18 octobre 2011 - 07:32 .

[Taciter]

[quote]Dudeman315 wrote...
So 1>.5  and 1 +.5 =/= 1.5 in your world?
...
SP=SP+SP or SP=2SP or 1=2[/quote]
Pahahah... nerdlol's

[quote]CptBomBom00 wrote...
also it depends on rivalry and time.[/quote]
Good point:-
TL = Total No. Forum contributors
R = Rivalry
MP = No. Multiplayer Supporters
SP = No. Solo Play Supporters
T = Time
P = Progress
R = MP + SP
P = (TL / R)^2 / T
=P

[quote]dreman9999 wrote...
But the value of the sp of ME3 is the value of the sp in thelast games.[/quote]
No, the value of SP in 'ME1' and 'ME2' was 1, in ME3, the value of SP is equal to 'ME3' - MP which is less than 1.

[quote]dreman9999 wrote...
I also don't know why you keep going on about AI in the mp. That's a perferance and a perferance will never make the game better. It justyou whould like to have it. In the end it would be no different then the sp side missions. I'm not saying it should not have it, just that it does not need it.[/quote]
You really can't see the hypocricy in that statement can you? It just sort of floats by...

[quote]Killjoy Cutter wrote...
How would increasing the playability of the MP content, especially going forward into a future time when the MP won't have a lot of people playing it (say, in two years) "not" make the game better?[/quote]
This!

[quote]dreman9999 wrote...
How would adding AI  bots impove mp if you playing by yourself? That's not a mp any more, it a sp game with a short term objective. It would be no different than the sp side mission. If you want that you can just replay the side missions over and over.[/quote]
You're like a machine... we've been answering this over and over and it still hasn't penetrated your CPU.
It would improve it beyond measure, namely, by making it viable - as it is, any Solo Player who wants to experience the 'side story' of Shepard's 'shadow team' following in his wake, will have to make do with simply...er.... not!

AI controlled squaddies would allow solo players to experience what conventional MP co-ops would experience without having to actually participate in MP. Sure, by definition it would then cease to be a 'multiplayer' but if it was a simple option, it would not deprive MP'ers wanting to experience co-op play with human's. The 'side-missions' and the 'Co-op' missions are not the same.. I repeat.. not the same! Hell, the whole premise is different.

[quote]Il Divo wrote...
I want to argue more, but there's just... too... much...math.
[/quote]LOL... I'm all math'ed out![/quote][quote]Il Divo wrote...
I don't think it would work. It would be like speaking Italian when everyone around you is speaking Japanese.[/quote]
Except for Dre who apparently only comprehends Binary.

Modifié par Taciter, 18 octobre 2011 - 07:42 .

[dreman9999]

Lumikki wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Yeah, I have consider it, but you keep saying MP has "no" affect at all to SP or costs. When everyone here knows MP has affect to the cost and it will have other effects too. That is what we have talked here, consern of MP's affect.

You just keep loving MP so much and keep ignoring that MP could have also negative consequences. You are right I don't know how much the costs are for MP and how big the affect has to SP, but that goes you too. You also don't know it. Why to hell you think we express our consern here?

Consider the fact that a horde mode is very cheap to make. You have no real balancing issues work on. You make the environments out of things form the sp. The only time things become expensive with mp is with vs, or long term extended co-op play. That's not the case with the mp in ME3. It's a hordemode, not difficult to make. Low expense.

Here you go again saying how cheap and easy for MP content is to make and so on. Are you game developer and know how easy it is or what it cost and what affects it has?

Point been just because you like MP content, doesn't mean you assumptions are right. I'm not saying that you are wrong or right, but problem is you are making just personal assumption without any knowledge of anyting related MP game design development.

Could you tell me the cost to add co-op to a gamE? At the base you add player control to another avatar and split the screen. That does not cost much to do. Extra cost would be with online support  and getting the AI to work  in tangent with each system and kill any bugs,which is also not that expensive to do ether.
If you play any fps online co-op, you will clearly see it doesn't take much to make a co-op game. You just add it tothe sp. The most the other team will do is make new skin, make a new rpg system, cut up maps and kill bugs.

[dreman9999]

[quote]Taciter wrote...

[quote]Dudeman315 wrote...
So 1>.5  and 1 +.5 =/= 1.5 in your world?
...
SP=SP+SP or SP=2SP or 1=2[/quote]
Pahahah... nerdlol's

[quote]CptBomBom00 wrote...
also it depends on rivalry and time.[/quote]
Good point:-
TL = Total No. Forum contributors
R = Rivalry
MP = No. Multiplayer Supporters
SP = No. Solo Play Supporters
T = Time
P = Progress
R = MP + SP
P = (TL / R)^2 / T
=P

[quote]dreman9999 wrote...
But the value of the sp of ME3 is the value of the sp in thelast games.[/quote]
No, the value of SP in 'ME1' and 'ME2' was 1, in ME3, the value of SP is equal to 'ME3' - MP which is less than 1.

[quote]dreman9999 wrote...
I also don't know why you keep going on about AI in the mp. That's a perferance and a perferance will never make the game better. It justyou whould like to have it. In the end it would be no different then the sp side missions. I'm not saying it should not have it, just that it does not need it.[/quote]
You really can't see the hypocricy in that statement can you? It just sort of floats by...

[quote]Killjoy Cutter wrote...
How would increasing the playability of the MP content, especially going forward into a future time when the MP won't have a lot of people playing it (say, in two years) "not" make the game better?[/quote]
This!
[quote]dreman9999 wrote...
How would adding AI  bots impove mp if you playing by yourself? That's not a mp any more, it a sp game with a short term objective. It would be no different than the sp side mission. If you want that you can just replay the side missions over and over.[/quote]
You're like a machine... we've been answering this over and over and it still hasn't penetrated your CPU.
It would improve it beyond measure, namely, by making it viable - as it is, any Solo Player who wants to experience the 'side story' of Shepard's 'shadow team' following in his wake, will have to make do with simply...er.... not!
AI controlled squaddies would allow solo players to experience what conventional MP co-ops would experience without having to actually participate in MP. Sure, by definition it would then cease to be a 'multiplayer' but if it was a simple option, it would not deprive MP'ers wanting to experience co-op play with human's. The 'side-missions' and the 'Co-op' missions are not the same.. I repeat.. not the same! Hell, the whole premise is different.

[quote]Il Divo wrote...
I want to argue more, but there's just... too... much...math. [/quote]LOL... I'm all math'ed out![/quote]
[quote]Il Divo wrote...
I don't think it would work. It would be like speaking Italian when everyone around you is speaking Japanese.[/quote]
Except for Dre who apparently only comprehends Binary.
[/quote]1. you not understanding.I taking about the games value in it's self not a a varible.  ME1 is a hour 30+ game. ME2 is a hour 30+ game and ME3 is ahour  30+. So in the end you gettingthe same amount of play time for the sp as each ME game in ME3. This mean ME3 is the same value as the last 2 games.
Also, I stated this over and over again that I'm not ageinst bots in the co-op. Just that the logic for wanting to use a 100% bot play in the mp is lost on me. Why? Because you can just do the same thing in the sp. Can you tell me the difference between mp co-op bot matchsand just playing the sp side mission with out stating you get a 4 man?